But feelings have nothing to do with realism. In fact, they're its antithesis.

I meant feel-good more in the sense of being the right thing to do, in the same way that excising the cancer in any way or instilling value and culture into society would be feel-good. Perhaps it was the wrong choice of words given that liberals use it to mean anything with acceptable means.

It seems like a great idea, but I am skeptical for one reason in particular:

Are we expecting over 120's to scrub shit-encrusted toilets or engage in any of the other unskilled labor we usually have proles do? Temporarily, sure, but won't the majority want to move on to greater ends?

And methods? Is this the kind of subtle eugenics our ancients always used through simply favoring the best or is this more direct prole conscription to Woodchipper College?

What's with all this "he said/she said" bullshit? We're all big boys and can handle harsh criticism without the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. I know the members here have a naturally high opinion of themselves (and not without just cause - most of the folks here are united by similar veins of interest and a penchant for truth and meaning), but if anything, threads like this exemplify the fact that emotions tend to get the best of us at times (not sure who has the humility to admit this, but you know who you are). Let's be clear here: this shows our common tendency towards proledom even with the intent to speak with oodles of wisdom, but also highlights the fact that we all care a great deal about our common human dilemma.

We already know our action plan because it is generalized enough to be put into practice. We know we're not going to form paramilitary attack squads and bomb public areas because we're noble hessian warriors of death. We know that any "revolution" will result in mass dissent and is thus unstable. But we also cannot sit idly by while everything goes on. This means we must not be too aggressive and simultaneously not too complacent. And oddly enough, that's outlined right here:

Quote from: prozak

As parallelists, we believe that we can establish a handful of principles that modify our current liberal democratic capitalist society, and that these will "organically" grow into a whole concept:

1.Localization. We do not need to live in big cities, and are happier in small communities. These can manage their own affairs, and an overlapping hierarchy of county, state and national governments can address bigger issues. 2.Culture before commerce. If we change our outlook to think in terms of cultural demands which commerce should serve, instead of the other way around, our society will have more consensus. 3.Organic, whole society. In everything that we do, we consider whole factors. It may benefit a few factors to have another McDonald's on a busy street corner, but we must think of all factors and make decisions accordingly. 4.We have a clear consensus and everything else is permitted. We can approach values two ways: a)use negative logic and try to avoid evil, which implies that everything else is good, leading to lack of direction; b)use positive logic and try to achieve good, which implies that all not leading to that goal is not useful. We should approach values through method (b), as it means that more things are permitted. 5.Direct our resources toward constructive goals. We can spend our time, money and effort on fears, or we can build up the best hopes we have. We should do the latter.

These attitudinal changes alone will produce a parallelist society from what we have. They are easy to implement and require only the agreement of minority of people in society who are leaders in their communities.

How do we bring these ideas to the forefront?

Quote from: prozak

This occurs in three steps:

I.Identify, brand and promote an ideology via the internet. II.Bring the discussion of this ideology to mainstream media. III.Unite the people who find it meaningful to aggressively push it to others.

We've got I down and are on to II. The last step doesn't necessitate II to be in full effect because in attempting I and II, we are accomplishing III to some degree.

This doesn't alienate idiots and hits a broad enough target audience. It's the equivalent of asking people if they want the modern landscape of art or social attitudes to change. It's like asking people "Do you want culture?". If you approach it this broadly, you fare a much better chance at uniting something like the third of the distribution, though realistically we can expect that about 1-5% will be brave enough to take on the challenge. 1% of America is somewhere over 3 million people. Not too bad.

The point is you can't really be thinking too far ahead. We're still in the stage of mass denial and thus can only expect a certain amount of "progress" (and if people here see progress as narrowly as direct results, then they won't see any of the behind-the-scenes progress that can potentially be made/has been made). We don't know the full extent of the ideological application insofar as how everything will physically appear, but if we work broadly enough by understanding what we want generally, it can grow into something more realized.

I probably sound like some sort of broken-record idealist here, but has any of this been attempted to any greater degree?

-Anyone in a university/college starting a Conservative group based on the generalized ANUS principles without any direct affiliation with ANUS. Correspondence with various other groups (ie. ethnic rights groups, religious groups, student unions, etc.)-Handing out pamphlets with said generalized information at university/college setting, public squares, community billboards, word-of-mouth, town-hall-type meetings with recruits.-Youtube video presence for those generalized ideas. T-shirts and other anal merchandise (sounds ridiculous, but why not adopt the methodology of the left? It's popular for a reason)-List of popular sites to infobomb. Emphasis on simply getting the platform known instead of "trolling" or engaging in pointless argument. Focus on what we are for rather than against.-Once the above snowballs into something even vaguely sizable in a local setting, write to local politicians, writers, newspapers, professors, family members, friends' family members, co-workers, etc. in order to get recognition. Any public talks, events, media time could potentially occur.-In order for the above to work, exercise your hidden extrovert and network the shit out of everything. The purpose isn't to make good friends - it's to establish a network of people who agree culture is worth fighting for and want to be part of something.

Package the ideas in a friendly/accessible enough manner and things COULD start happening. Yes, the above might sound silly/retarded/been attempted before and failed/not attempted before due to impracticality, but it could work for a few reasons:

Tribal mentality, intelligence and the desire to be part of something meaningful could motivate the right folks to join if you have a platform that seems friendly enough that it wouldn't alienate too many. Looking at the bell curve, we know that there are enough above 120 - it's just a matter of reaching them in the right manner. I simply refuse to believe that those 1-5% actually WANT to sit idly by and pretend like they're useless which is why it's quite possible that the right combination of ideas packaged in a particular way could trigger the desire.

Throw the under-120's into the woodchipper is a feel-good concept. But whether it would really deliver on the promise, I'm not entirely certain about.

Bruce Charlton offers up the idea that too many intellectuals would actually be counter-productive to stability because they would be too opinionated and would have the need to implement their worldviews to the detriment of the whole. It's an interesting point, and certainly diversity among the elite would bring its own problems to the table, but this is only assuming that the elite cannot come upon consensus of the core ideas.

Anders is a false hero. It is much more difficult and rewarding to create rather rather than to destroy. To lead rather than to follow the path of disdain that have led many astray. To call upon self-discipline then becomes the most noble and moral way to act.

The current order will destroy itself from within whether we employ our individual or combined influences in either case, so we should focus on creating order within our selves and then applying that as best we can to the world at large in a local setting. It's a generalized view, but it is honest, noble and recognizes our personal insignificance so as to not allow us to become embittered from powerlessness (which leads to self-destruction). If we had any easy plan which translated into absolute ways each and every one of us could apply in order to impart the momentum for change in our external world, it would have been recognized and implemented by now. But the nature of a complex and intertwined world means we continue to discuss theories, methods and from that intuit a vague framework for practical application. So the most we can ask of ourselves is to be honest and reverent for the truth and create something good and stable like families and a network of people who can support your goals.

I don't mean to be obtuse here but how do you reconcile Nietzsche and nihilism with having any kind of spiritual or moral belief? I just don't understand this.

I know I'm not the only one to view Nietzsche as something of a spiritualist and a Romantic. He could not have written with such vitriol and disdain for modernity without recognizing what once was and thus could be once again. His writings are in a crucial way, a call to reclaim a sense of purpose greater than ourselves (his views on Art, the Overman, the hammer and the transvaluation of values, seeing the death of god as tragic, etc.) Nietzsche celebrates natural order and beauty, so I'm not really sure how one couldn't reconcile a morality that pertains to traditional ways of life with his works at large. If Nietzsche is ever seen as aspiritual, amoral or deeply pessimistic, it would seem to me that this would be a great misunderstanding on the part of the readers not to recognize the hope-laden ideas inherent to his verses.

As we approach step III, it makes the most sense for us to find candidates to take local offices and show that our ideas can succeed, gaining more trust from the general population. Ours is not a revolution but a peaceful transition.

I understand that the increased occurrence of Linkolan thought has become more prevalent across Europe due to increasingly urgent environmental matters, but it's no "peaceful transition", as suggested. Of course, urgent matters require urgent action, but I just wanted someone to clarify what it is ANUS actually suggests.

As well, does anyone think Linkolan reality has the possibility of actually occurring? Eco-gulags, Green Police, forced sterilization, forced re-education, etc. Will humanists of all varieties not seek to subvert that existence?

I should also mention, Linkola is a "global warmist" according to the article above. I was under the impression that global warming was not at all the real issue; is he simply using "global warming" as a front for overpopulation and ecological destruction or does he genuinely believe in man-made global warming?

I recall reading on Amerika (I might be wrong, though I think this is coming from Brett Stevens) that there is a certain love for America, at least in theory. Now, I don't know American history (though plan on reading it in the future), but such a view would logically be consistent if there were an ideal America (either one existing in the past or a theoretical ideal) that differs radically from America in modernity. I don't expect an in-depth history lesson to rectify this hole in my knowledge, but perhaps someone could answer a few basic questions to satisfy my curiosity as this was on my mind at the time:

-Did the founding fathers have an idea of America that was consistent with ANUSian philosophy? If so, was this idea implemented and to what extent?

-A bit of an extension of the previous question: I recall a comment (most likely from Amerika again) which claimed that the American Dream was possible at a certain point in American history, but that it is now not possible. Is this an accurate statement? I don't live in America, but it seems to me (from afar at least) that the level of meritocracy currently in place, while not up to standards of natural selection, is still able to reward those who contribute and work hard (but again, I can't really say for sure since I am not directly part of that system). Certainly it often rewards those who should not be rewarded and makes it difficult for those with something real to contribute, but if I were to pick a discipline and work hard, I should expect some fitting reward in America? Perhaps another question would be this: In what ways does the system not reward those with real intelligence? (any particular examples would be interesting).

-An afterthought from the previous set of questions: Is the American Dream really worth fighting for? Seems like an individualist ideal to me: the freedom to be anyone you want, work hard and make lots of money. Or is Amerika/ANUS perhaps more for the idea of the American Dream in the context of a society which enables useful jobs to flourish?

-Amerika certainly seems to have an ideal America and that of course must involve a preference for the ethnic aggregate too. I am wondering, who exactly should be part of the ideal American society? All white people? I have heard that initial aggregate was composed of mainly Western Europeans and some Easterners. Was the result of the collections of these peoples a marked cultural difference in comparison to their respective European heritage? Could the ideal Amerika potentially contain more Eastern Europeans despite its original composition?

-What is to happen to all of those who are assimilated into modern American ways? Do they remain in America? They are 'cultureless', but after so many generations of assimilation, hold nearly nothing in common with the culture of their ethnic ancestors. Should they be allowed to die off somehow or forced to return to their country of origin? Or perhaps attempt to assimilate to those of their ethnicity within America? That is roughly what pan-nationalism is, if I'm not mistaken. Though the details elude me now as well as implementation from now to a future ideal of cultural homogeneity.

-Is the ideal America/Canada different from that of other countries with ethnic homogeneity in the sense that the ideal of the former contains peoples of various ethnic backgrounds living together but governed as respective ethnic groups within the country? Perhaps pan-nationalist philosophy covers this, but I'd like some clarification on this matter.

-What is American culture (I'm not talking about modernity here, by the way), how is it different to the culture of its initial ethnic aggregate and why is this particular permutation of culture valuable/worth preserving?

My parents were both programmers at one point, though what they do now could best be described as project management. Tedious work with vacuous, self-possessed drones and an occasional sense of satisfaction with the outcomes after having completed a large project. But my father is at home all the time (ie. miserable) because he hated dealing with people and my mother comes home drained from the negativity of other miserable office drones and aggressive bosses. Of course, there is a certain degree of perspective involved in not allowing yourself to succumb to negativity and depression when you are around incompetence and greed, but nonetheless it makes one pause for thought and consider not going the same route.

At first, I had set my eye on jazz guitar (a short and cursory phase that I outgrew after I had been rejected from university, rediscovered my love for classical and then had to figure out what I really could do), and then I did a general year of Liberal Arts courses (mostly). I would have avoided this, but it turns out that a certain amount of Liberal Arts credits are mandatory for graduation. It put a new perspective on the state of the education system for me, as I could neither relate to the material most of the time, or when I did, it was fleeting and returned to drudgery and boredom. It wasn't entirely useless, but might as well have been for the amount of money that I paid for courses that I could have easily taught myself had I scoured the internet or read a book about the subjects. In my 2nd year, I decided I'd attempt to major in Anthropology, but let myself resort to pleasures and self-pity, which eventually resulted in a lack of motivation to do anything for long periods of time which then turned into depression. And since then I've recommitted to a field that I find will be both stimulating, productive and lucrative: Biotechnology. Conservation Ecology sounded nice and fuzzy too (which is a branch off specialty from Biology rather than the Liberal alternative of Environmental 'Science'), but Biotechnology seems all around more pertinent to modernity.

Just my 2 cents. I presume after I've finished the degree and start looking for real work, I'll have a more thorough perspective.

Correct me if I'm wrong on some of these points, as I am looking to get a better understanding.

Quote from: quick facts about race

Race is a modern idea: Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, or even language

From what I recall, (many?) ancient societies were racially homogenous. Moreover, physical differences imply more than just physiology, but a particular cultural personality/genetic predisposition to favorable qualities for survival within your race.

Quote from: quick facts about race

Race has no genetic basis: Not one characteristic, trait, or gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from all members of another so-called race.

Except that race is a collection of traits and there is no easy distinction from one race to the next because of geographic proximity and interbreeding which leads to different degrees of variance among the races. However, it is easy to distinguish between the 3 (or 4?) major racial groups.

Quote from: quick facts about race

Slavery predates race: Throughout history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. In America, a unique set of circumstances led to the enslavement of peoples who looked similar.

I don't understand how the phrase "slavery predates race" makes sense, let alone helps to strengthen their leftist claims. Is this some sort of odd way of saying that conquest and enslavement of peoples occur due to mere geographical proximity and convenience? Are they trying to tell me that those who conquered and enslaved did not justify their actions with claims of superiority? And the part about America? I don't even know what to make of that.

Quote from: quick facts about race

Race justified social inequalities as natural: As the race concept evolved, it justified extermination of Native Americans, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and taking of Mexican lands. Racial practices were institutionalized within government, laws and society.

Racism is bad so that means any distinction and discussion of race must automatically lead to more racism. By this quick fact, I'm sure to be feeling an adequate amount of white guilt for oppressing the ancestral minorities (even though I am not personally responsible, nor of Western European descent).

Quote from: quick facts about race

Skin color is only skin deep: Most traits are inherited independently of one another. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with genes for hair texture, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, or athletic ability.

This one just seems like it's completely full of shit. You're telling me that East Asians do not share similar skin color, hair texture and eye shape let alone a predisposition to a relatively high IQ on average? Or that blacks share the same except with a predisposition to a relatively low IQ and also happen to mature quicker out of the womb, making them physiologically more predisposed to excelling in physical feats?

Quote from: quick facts about race

Most variation is within, not between "races": Of the small amount of human genetic variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans, or Cherokees. Two random Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

Lewontin's Fallacy applies here. It becomes rather easy to genetically distinguish once you consider several alleles at once.

Quote from: quick facts about race

Race is not biological, but racism is still real. Race is still a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and society have created advantages to being white. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

If you're not feeling the white guilt by this point, then this "fact" makes it very clear that you should be. Hey, what about Affirmative Action? They hire women, people with disabilities, natives and visible minorities before they consider a white male. Yea, sounds like a big advantage to being white.

The rest of the site has "interactive activities" like visual race identification in which you try to match the face with the race. I got less than half of them right. I guess this means that I'm racist or something.... (cue more white guilt). They also urge you to "explore why race is not biological" throughout. Comes with silly "Race: The Power of an Illusion" video.

Apparently, neighborhoods turn into shit not because minorities move in, but because white people leave the areas due to "perceiving" a decline.

Also, let's not forget that pbs is an organization. This apparently makes them a valid source for your paper (because people could write anything on a .com site but not .org, har har).

Alrighty then, I'm just going to engage in interracial marriage now because I find black asses to be bigger than white ones and this is a sufficient and fundamental basis upon which I will conduct all my relationships, kthxbai.

People who are a part of fraternities tend to participate in stupid shit. See: Hazing in general, and the elephant walk. Moreover, people who are part of social groups, especially exclusive ones, will do anything for social points. The act of hogging does not itself present any sort of satisfaction to the perpetrator outside a social context.

This reminds me of the plethora of Slutwalks that sprung up across the world and accomplished absolutely nothing. This isn't functionally any different, rather a silly excuse for people to feel like they are practicing their "civic responsibility" so that later on when somebody asks how they have "made a difference", they can cite the event and proclaim altruism. Perfect resume fodder.

Learn to relax. There's an enormous difference between having a misanthropic disdain for a substandard existence lead you into inspiring greatness in yourself and others, and simply being a spiteful loser who hates people because they like dumb shit. A couple of weeks ago I semi-trolled a couple of friends of mine by stating that ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME? is moron music, and this caused a semi-uproar, but I only did that because we already had strong social bonds from many previous encounters and also because it was just for my entertainment - I wasn't actually expecting to EDUCATE anyone. To my surprise, after only a few minutes their appreciation for the band had begun to slightly diminish. Had I been all blood & thunder, serious discourse on the evils of white trash music, and how I've come to appreciate better music(thus implying, intentionally or not, that *I* was better than them as a person), I would have accomplished absolutely nothing but self-ostracization. Setting it up as a purposefully incendiary joke, and thus a casual comment made only half-seriously, evidently made them more receptive to it. Point being, learn how to operate within the confines of the world in which you live. Fantasizing about how the world SHOULD be will do nothing on its own. Provide an example which others will find appealing, and they'll follow in time - that is to say, actions speak louder than words, especially if those words do nothing but alienate your peers. Be relentless in mind, patient in action. A more specific tip: learn to be funny. If you can make people laugh, they'll willingly listen to absolutely anything you say, even if it's trite. If all you can do is make them groan, they'll quickly learn to tune you out regardless of the merit of your statements.

I don't have a misanthropic disdain for existence. On the contrary, I am trying to learn how to relax and be more social because I believe there is something to be gained from that. I know I can't have a meaningful conversation with everyone and so I don't bother all out attacking anyone. That said, I find that I can connect much more readily and effectively when I'm alone with someone. Group situations on the other hand tend to make me a little more anxious.